The Forgotten Socialist History of Martin Luther King Jr.

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

For King, the only solution to America’s crisis of poverty was the redistribution of wealth.

In 1952 a 23-year-old Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a love letter to Coretta Scott. Along with coos of affection and apologies for his hasty handwriting, he described his feelings not just toward his future wife, but also toward America’s economic system. “I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic,” he admitted to his then-girlfriend, concluding that “capitalism has outlived its usefulness.”

King composed these words as a grad student on the tail end of his first year at the Boston University School of Theology. And far from representing just the utopianism of youth, the views expressed in the letter would go on to inform King’s economic vision throughout his life.

As Americans honor King on his birthday, it is important to remember that the civil rights icon was also a democratic socialist, committed to building a broad movement to overcome the failings of capitalism and achieve both racial and economic equality for all people.

Capitalism “has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes,” King wrote in his 1952 letter to Scott. He would echo the sentiment 15 years later in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?: “Capitalism has often left a gap of superfluous wealth and abject poverty [and] has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few.”

In his famous 1967 Riverside Church speech, King thundered, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

And in an interview with the New York Times in 1968, King described his work with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) this way, “In a sense, you could say we are engaged in the class struggle.”

Speaking at a staff retreat of the SCLC in 1966, King said that “something is wrong … with capitalism” and “there must be a better distribution of wealth” in the country. “Maybe,” he suggested, “America must move toward a democratic socialism.”

In Where Do We Go From Here, which calls for “the full emancipation and equality of Negroes and the poor,” King advocates policies in line with a democratic socialist program: a guaranteed annual income, constitutional amendments to secure social and economic equality, and greatly expanded public housing. He endorses the Freedom Budget put forward by socialist activist A. Philip Randolph, which included such policies as a jobs guarantee, a living wage and universal healthcare. He also outlines how economic inequality can circumscribe civil rights. While the wealthy enjoy easy access to lawyers and the courts, “the poor, however, are helpless,” he writes.

This emphasis on poverty is not always reflected in contemporary teachings about King, which tend to focus strictly on his advocacy for civil rights. But Where Do We Go From Here and the final project of King’s life—the Poor People’s Campaign—show that King’s dream included a future of both racial and economic equality.

“What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter,” King is widely quoted as asking, “if you can’t afford to buy a hamburger?” In King’s view, the Greensboro lunch counter sit-ins, the voter registration drives across the South and the Selma to Montgomery march comprised but the first phase of the civil rights movement. In Where Do We Go From Here, King called the victories of the movement up that point in 1967 “a foothold, no more” in the struggle for freedom. Only a campaign to realize economic as well as racial justice could win true equality for African-Americans. In naming his goal, King was unflinching: the “total, direct, and immediate abolition of poverty.”

The shortcoming of the first phase of the civil rights movement, to King, was its emphasis on opportunity rather than guarantees. The ability to buy a hamburger at a lunch counter without harassment did not guarantee that the hungry would be fed. Access to the ballot box did not guarantee anti-racist legislation. The end of Jim Crow laws did not guarantee the flourishing of African-American communities. Decency did not guarantee equality.

Some white people had gone along with the fight for access and opportunity, King concluded, because it cost them nothing. “Jobs,” however, “are harder and costlier to create than voting rolls.” When African-Americans sought not only to be treated with dignity, but guaranteed fair housing and education, many whites abandoned the movement. In King’s words, as soon as he demanded “the realization of equality”—the second phase of the civil rights movement—he discovered whites suddenly indifferent.

King considered the Poor People's Campaign to be the vehicle for this next phase of the movement precisely because it offered both material advances and the potential for stronger cross-racial organizing. For King, only a multiracial working-class movement, which the Poor People's Campaign aspired to be, could guarantee both racial and economic equality.

King was disgusted by the juxtaposition of decadence and destitution in America. We “compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity,” he fumed. Quoting social justice advocate Hyman Bookbinder, King wrote that ending poverty in America merely requires demanding that the rich “become even richer at a slower rate.”

For King, the only solution to America’s crisis of poverty was the redistribution of wealth. In a 1961 speech to the Negro American Labor Council, King declared, “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”

From his early letters to Coretta Scott until his final days, King put forward a vision of a society that provides equality for people of all races and backgrounds. This is the cause King spent his life fighting for. And it is one we should recommit to as we honor his legacy.

If you choose to "disagree" with documented history, then you are a fool and a willful idiot.

If your grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, then you must be a child.

If not, then you clearly have nothing to contribute.

Posted by Robert Riversong on 2018-04-04 15:36:21

Well, from my perspective, the perspective of both of my parents and all of my grandparents having been actively engaged in the civil rights movement here in California, my father also being in an elected office, I do disagree with you and with your statement. Thank you so much for ignoring the rest of my point as well. I am merely pointing out that it is much more than a race issue, it is a socioeconomic issue at heart, which, if you have read a lot of King's discourse and speeches over the years, he points out again and again THOSE inequities specifically. The way to remedy that is to value money less and people more. Furthermore, if you actually believe that reverse discrimination is a myth then I must draw the conclusion that you have little to no contact with the actual public. I am not suggesting putting blinders on to race or social inequities, I am suggesting that the basis of those inequities are rooted far more in distribution of resources rather than along color lines. I have never once been afraid of "losing my privilege" as that privilege does not exist in any real context as related to my skin color. I have attained not one job, school scholarship, interview, or any advantage whatsoever from the color of my skin. Nor have I ever blocked, denied, or otherwise tried to repress any other person for the color of theirs. I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment that valued each individual based on their merits and have always been a champion to rectify any kind of inequality in my immediate environment. Our government, school systems and even employment laws in California have actively sought to promote participation of all races in our economic and educational systems. It was called affirmative action and was a direct result of the efforts of not only our legislators but also of people like my parents and my grandparents actively promoting it. Donald Trump I have no comment on, as he is completely irrelevant in this discussion. I hope in the future you are more open-minded when it comes to judging people as there are so many of us who truly want a more equal better world. Of course someone with my personal history would be frustrated at the dismissal of my families efforts. Some of my earliest memories are of standing in picket lines with my parents, supporting the arts, humanities and legislation that represent a wide, diverse cast.

Posted by Tara Gilbert on 2018-04-04 14:09:23

I don't think it is fair at all to say that "he discovered whites suddenly indifferent." I have seen no proof of that at all.

Then you are both ignorant of recent history and blind to current reality.

When King moved from voting rights to economic justice, most of his white supporters abandoned his mission.

And, today, whites who are fearful of losing their privilege, as people of color approach a demographic majority and continue to demand equal rights, resort to crying "reverse discrimination" and elect a bigot like Donald Trump.

Posted by Robert Riversong on 2018-04-04 07:18:59

If King was wrong about capitalism, then so was Thomas Paine, the philosophical inspiration for the American Revolution.

"... The accumulation of personal property," Paine wrote, "is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence."

Paine proposed the first universal social security system, paid for my an inheritance tax on the wealthy.

Posted by Robert Riversong on 2018-04-04 07:16:02

What you're actually saying is that you'll take ignorance and bigotry over reason and justice.

Now you're blocked.

Posted by Robert Riversong on 2018-04-04 07:10:59

Then you need to go back to school to study political economy. MLK never advocated for state control of the means of production.

In fact, what he advocated was precisely what was proposed by America's revolutionary agitator, Thomas Paine, in his last pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, in which he proposed a universal social security system to redistribute accumulated wealth to We the People as a matter of economic justice.

Posted by Robert Riversong on 2018-04-04 07:09:39

I am angry i dont tolerate marxist scum.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-02-04 16:14:29

Who's angry now? Methinks thou doth project too much.

Posted by PeterGrfx on 2018-01-27 22:30:14

What's your idea of the difference between the two, and how does that make MLK "more of a communist than a socialist"? Broadly speaking the difference historically is just the distinction he made himself by calling for a DEMOCRATIC socialism.

Posted by PeterGrfx on 2018-01-27 22:27:28

Cesar chavez the farm worker.. the one the left holds up ..and names schools after and blvds.. check him out. ..we dont have democrats in america we have communists . and many dont even know it .

Posted by whocares on 2018-01-22 08:17:03

as the taxpayers who are the people should pay for things that are for the common good.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-22 00:06:21

Because nothing is free that the government does moron tax payers pay for everything "free".

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-21 23:49:13

why shouldn't college be free. other than that some scumbag wants to get rich off of impoverishing and making into debt slave most people.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-21 22:43:38

College shouldn't be free everything cost money and everything should. The government local and state provide Scholarships. If not you take out a loan and if the course you're taking is complete bullshit like I said you can then go and get a job and pay it off but if you're taking lesbian dance theory you're not going to find a job. Pretty much any humanities course.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-21 21:25:02

you mean the public schools that are underfunded to the point of being terrible. and community colleges are also not free as well as that community colleges only cover the first couple years of college through the sophomore level after that you have to go to a far more expensive school to finish your education.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-21 20:49:14

Lol public schools are free for everyone even illegals. community college is cheap and worth it as long as you don't study some bullshit humanities course.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-21 20:43:16

ah you mean the schooling that is getting priced out of the range of the poor by you rich scum. how about making all the crimes of you rich scum that got you all your wealth crimes again for a starter.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-20 23:14:45

No one owes you a good paying job no one owes anyone a good paying job you go to school and get educated to find them. And what exactly do you mean by "fighting back". That's the thing about you God damn collectivists, communists, whatever you want to call yourselves, you betray your true positions with your anger and willingness to cause violence or at least call for it.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-20 16:01:09

yes, you love fascism and poverty for all but a few oligarchs.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-20 14:37:49

You and King are both communists that despise free enterprise and capitalism, that's your choice. Hell, that is the platform of The Democrat Party! Enjoy. Ill take freedom and liberty any day over communism and suppression.

Posted by Sunny on 2018-01-20 14:16:28

depends on your point of view, to me being a radical supporter of the rich scum like you is the worst sort of way to be radical.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-20 14:01:58

Being a radical communist is not the "best sort of way"

Posted by Sunny on 2018-01-20 09:51:14

yeah, taking bad paying jobs rather than fighting back is usually a bad decision.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-20 08:43:44

The poor screw themselves half the time through bad decisions. Capitalism has brought the world out of poverty communism has killed over 100 million people and socialism at best creates a stagnant society that relies on the state for everything.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-19 21:11:06

well being rich scum or a rich scum lackey might not allow you to see how the current capitalist system is screwing over all the poor.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-19 20:52:11

Lol sure thing

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-19 20:49:59

It's worth pointing out that MLK's socialist sympathies, and his overall increasingly radical politics, have not merely been "forgotten" because of apathy or indifference.

This dimension of King's life and beliefs has been deliberately repressed and denied by a long-term, top-down consent-manufacturing campaign, aka propaganda. This is obvious from an examination of the way the MLK federal holiday is observed.

The official celebration of "Martin Luther King Day" has increasingly advanced the agenda of expurgating the memory and meaning of MLK's radical leadership, especially the powerful anti-war, anti-empire, and anti-capitalism views King espoused during his final months of life as he continued to evolve politically.

Instead, as numerous critics have observed, Dr. King has been formally reduced to a "plaster saint", a gifted orator and civil rights advocate whose legacy begins and ends with promoting "non-violence" and public service. The hideous depersonalized sculpture that's the centerpiece of the Washington DC "MLK Memorial" ironically captures the ugly deceit informing this official rehabilitated projection of King's life and work.

With the cooperation and blessing of complacent moderates in and out of power, the mainstream narrative imposed a Booker T. Washington façade on Dr. King's life work. Thus, the generations who came after King's death are instructed that MLK was all about "volunteerism" and, yes, public "service". Local news stations in my city reverently proclaim this holiday as a "The Doctor Martin Luther King Day of Service", and showcase saccharine "human interest" stories of schoolkids doing volunteer work and the like to honor MLK's ostensible legacy.

This sanitized emphasis on submissive, compliant "service" fortuitously leaves no room for the possibility that any decent, responsible kid might be out there dabbling in radical counterculture, or actually agitating for social change as King did. Instead, they are adjured to meekly and piously line up like choir members to perform civic "service" in honor of King's memory.

I can't decide whether the official holiday should be rebranded "Good Cop" Day or "Uncle Tom" Day.

Posted by Ort on 2018-01-19 19:18:02

funny seeing that the current state of our nation sure seems to be proving him right on capitalism.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-19 16:02:25

he was radical in the best sort of way though, rather than the current two allowed parties that are radical in the worst sort of rich scum way.

Posted by zonmoy on 2018-01-19 16:01:44

One thing for sure, someone doesn't have to be perfect to be honored for something good they may have done. All of us have or havew had in the past positions that could have been improved upon.There may very well have been champions of captialism who knew some things needed to be changed. However, they did not have the courage to take a stand that would lead to that change. Dr. King had the courage to take the stand and the risk that went with taking that stand. We all are better in some way because he did. So, let me say, Remember and build on the good and yes, if he was wrong on some other point, let us never stop learning. My father told me one day, "Son, if you learn something I did not know, please don't reject it just because I did not know it,"

Posted by Ray Pippin on 2018-01-17 15:26:09

Maybe the real problem is our focus on money. If we get rid of the idea of money and focus less on material objects and more on love and helping everyone around us then perhaps we would have more productive results. I don't think it is fair at all to say that "he discovered whites suddenly indifferent." I have seen no proof of that at all. I think instead of creating a dividing line along race, although since more AA people were suffering in poverty (but a lot of whites and others are certainly not excluded from this category of being poor) he was on the right track, pointing out economic divides. Which are far more real. When you abandon the current paradigm of valuing money as opposed to say human life, a far different outcome will emerge... just sayin. Brilliant man and so worthy of respect though.

Posted by Tara Gilbert on 2018-01-17 12:10:18

Didn't say anything about what your talking about i just said he was wrong about capitalism.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-16 09:02:48

no, he got killed because of what he believed in..he was a threat to others and their lifestyles.how is that wrong ?

Posted by benny black on 2018-01-15 21:14:07

depends on your idea of "radical" surely having a political economic system where the elite wealthy minoritys welfare is prioritized by governments is radical, not radical is wanting the whole population to be well fed ,educated and healthy...

Posted by benny black on 2018-01-15 21:12:34

Well you can't be right about everything I guess he got this one wrong.

Posted by AtheistRight on 2018-01-15 15:58:27

After reading this, I would say he was more of a communist than a socialist. He sure was a lot more radical than he is portrayed today.